Thursday, October 13, 2011

Read below for to find out how the government is moving to silence Tarek's defense! They have laid out all of the points they do not want out in the public, so make sure to help us make it as public as possible!

Goverment Moves to Prevent Tarek Mehanna from Presenting his Case to the Jury

In a series of pre-trial motions filed on October 3, 2011, governmentprosecutors are seeking to restrict any evidence, commentary ortestimony that would expose the political nature and retaliatorymotives of their case against Tarek Mehanna. The motions themselveslay bare the real issues at stake in the case: all the things thatthe government wants to prevent the defense from talking about.

Here are some excerpts from a motion entitled "GOVERNMENT'S MOTION INLIMINE TO LIMIT DEFENSE COMMENT AND INQUIRY REGARDING INADMISSIBLESUBJECT MATTER":

"Government Charging Decisions. Arguments and comments on thecharging decisions of the government are irrelevant to whether theevidence is sufficient to convict the defendant and couldinappropriately distract the jury from the factual issues that theymust decide. ... The decision to prosecute the defendant, includingimplications about the sequence of timing of those decisions, as wellas the government's prosecutorial decisions with regard to theco-defendant or to other individuals, are not appropriate for thedefense to comment upon in opening. "And later: "Another attempt to impugn the propriety of thegovernment's investigation is likely to be through a defense attemptto suggest that the government made immunity deals with more culpableindividuals than the defendant."

Translation: In 2010, the government allowed a cooperating witness inthe case, Bilaal McCloud, to go free on a charge of being a felony inpossession of firearms. They apparently had material evidence againstMcCloud. They nevertheless chose instead to prosecute Tarek--againstwhom they have no such evidence--and to allow McCloud to walk free.They did this in return for his testimony incriminating Tarek. Thegovernment seems to be aware that potential jurists might find thisstrange--even outrageous. So they want to be sure that the jury won'tlearn about it.

It's also clear that the decision to prosecute Tarek for "terrorism"related charges occurred after a long period of coercive pressureaimed at getting him to work as an informant for the FBI. He wasinitially arrested in 2008 on a lesser charge of "lying to federalagents." Terrorism charges followed in 2009 based on "evidence" thegovernment claims to have possessed since 2006 and only after Tarekrefused to work for the FBI as an informant against other Muslims.The "sequence and timing" of the government's "charging decisions"would raise legitimate suspicions in the mind of any rational person,so the government doesn't want a jury to learn about it.

"The Government's Motivation for Investigating or Prosecuting theCase. Evidence bearing on the government's decision to prosecute is"extraneous and collateral" and thus excluded from trial."

Translation: The FBI repeatedly approached Tarek to try to recruithim as an informant. He refused. They threatened to prosecute him on"terrorism " charges and to make his life a "living hell." He stillrefused. They proceeded to arrest him on "terrorism" charges. Mostpeople hearing this would see the possibility that the government'sactions were retaliatory and politically motivated. They want to besure that these motives can't be talked about.

From another government motion, "TO PRECLUDE ARGUMENT AND EVIDENCE

RELATED TO THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT'S POLITICAL POLICIES ANDACTIVITIES ABROAD AND IN DOMESTIC (CRIMINAL) TERRORISM INVESTIGATIONSAND RELATED MATTERS":

"The United States of America ... moves in limine to preclude thedefendant from arguing, eliciting testimony (including experttestimony) or presenting evidence regarding the merits of UnitedStates government's political policies abroad, and references to therighteousness of its defense and intelligence activities, anddomestic criminal investigations and prosecutions, and allegedpolitical motivation for defendant's actions. Based upon thedefendant's arguments in this case, and disclosures made by thedefense, the government anticipates attempted references in openingstatement and closing argument,and during cross and directexamination, that question or criticize the righteousness of U.S.governmental policies and actions, such as the invasion of Iraq andAfghanistan, and the defendant's First Amendment right to protestsame, the solicitation of assistance in terrorism investigations, therelationship with the American Muslim community, the prioritizationof law enforcement objectives, the decision to designate al Qa'ida asa terrorist organization, and several other political and irrelevantissues which will prevent a jury from remaining focused on the factsthat they will be sworn to decide."

And later: "...the government respectfully requests this Court topreclude the defendant from eliciting testimony, presenting evidenceof or arguing in the opening or closing statement related to thepropriety of the U.S. Government's policy positions with regard tothe Executive's actions, the suggestion the prosecution seeks topunish the defendant for opposing what he might view as improperforeign policy actions of the United States, and his alleged firstamendment right to do so."

Translation: Tarek has been public and outspoken in his opposition toUS wars of aggression against Afghanistan and Iraq, the detention ofMuslims, and other US policies. The vast majority of "evidence" thegovernment has submitted against Tarek consists of political speech.Most juries would be appalled to learn that "terrorism" charges werebeing used to silence political speech. The government is thus tryingto preclude any presentation of this argument to a jury.

From a further motion, "TO PRECLUDE QUESTIONING WHICH ELICITSCLASSIFIED INFORMATION AND RESTRICTS COUNSEL FROM MAKING COMMENTSBEFORE THE JURY SUGGESTING CLASSIFIED INFORMATION IS BEING USED TOPROSECUTE THE DEFENDANT":

"The United States of America ... hereby moves in limine to precludethe defendant from eliciting testimony from any witness that wouldreveal classified information or force a witness to indicate that aresponse would require them to disclose classified information.Likewise, the government requests the Court to order the defense torefrain from making inappropriate comments to the jury suggestingthat classified information (or "secret evidence" or some otheranalog) is being used to prosecute the defendant."

Translation: The government has refused to turn over evidence used inobtaining electronic surveillance warrants against Tarek. Suchevidence might demonstrate that the government engaged inillegitimate spying on political dissidents, or show how thegovernment manipulated informants, or reveal other information thatmight severely discredit its case. The use of "secret evidence"stinks of totalitarianism. So the government wants to make sure thatits use of "secret evidence" also remains a secret. The right of thedefendant to see the evidence is, after all, one of the mostelementary rights to due process. A jury might have doubts about acase in which the defendant has been deprived of those rights.

And here's our personal favorite, quoting again from the first motiondiscussed above:

"the government respectfully requests that the Court preclude anyallegations of outrageous government conduct as a trial defense."

Virtually everything about this case--including all the motionslisted above-- falls under the category of "outrageous governmentconduct." What would happen if the jury heard that?

Break the Chains.info

is a news and discussion forum for supporters of political prisoners, prisoners of war, politicized social prisoners, and victims of police and state intimidation.

This blog is organized and updated autonomously of the disbanded Break the Chains Prisoner Support Network formerly based in Eugene, Oregon. While this online project shares several of the same concerns as the old Break the Chains collective, no formal organization exists behind the current web presence.

"I will never surrender my pride and dignity nor allow the system to 'cut my tongue' and I will always, without fear, speak out against these war crimes and crimes against humanity, no matter if I spend the rest of my life in a prison cage, and draw my last breath of air laying down in this steel bed surrounded by razor-wire fences and cages, and its prison policies that are designed to destroy one's humanity…."